Vitrano v. Westgate Sea Products Co.

California Court of Appeal Jun 14, 1939 No. Civ. No. 2085Published

Before: Barnard

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court denied a motion to dismiss an appeal for failure to timely file a brief because the appellants filed their opening brief prior to the hearing on the motion.

Issues

Whether an appeal should be dismissed for failure to file a brief within the time prescribed by court rules when the brief is filed after notice of the motion to dismiss but before the motion is heard.

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“After notice of the motion was filed but prior to the time set for making the motion, an opening brief was filed on behalf of the appellants.”

“The motion to dismiss is denied.”

BARNARD, P. J. The respondent has moved to dismiss this appeal upon the ground that no brief was filed by the appellants within the time provided for in the rules governing this court and that there was an unreasonable delay in this respect. After notice of the motion was filed but prior to the time set for making the motion, an opening brief was filed on behalf of the appellants. Similar circumstances have been held sufficient to justify the denial of such a motion. (Toth v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 113 Cal. App. 55 [297 Pac. 564] ; Graybiel v. Consolidated Assns., Ltd., 14 Cal. App. (2d) 547 [58 Pac. (2d) 665]; Hall v. Wolford, 22 Cal. App. (2d) 537 [71 Pac. (2d) 596].) While the delay here was longer than that in the cases cited we are inclined to apply the same rule in view of certain circumstances which here appear.

The motion to dismiss is denied.

Marks, J., concurred.

Vitrano v. Westgate Sea Products Co.

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief